Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
STATION
CSPAN 21
CSPAN2 15
MSNBC 11
MSNBCW 11
WHUT (Howard University Television) 6
KQED (PBS) 5
CNN 3
CNNW 3
FBC 3
KRCB (PBS) 3
WETA 3
CNBC 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 104
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 104 (some duplicates have been removed)
interconnected with the rest of the world. >> foreign policy is actually not foreign. >> america has faced great hardship before and each time we have risen to the challenge. >> the ultimate test is to move our society from where it is to where it has never been. >> join us as we explore today's most critical global issues. join us for great decisions. >> great decisions is produced by the foreign policy association, inspiring americans to learn more about the world. sponsorship of great decisions is provided by credit suisse, eni, the hurford foundation, and pricewaterhousecoopers llp. >> coming up next, the intervention calculation. (instrumental music) >> historically the u.s. leaned heavily on strategic interventions to help counter the influence of communism. >> the reagan doctrine was a notion that we would support those that sought to oppose soviet domination. >> during the cold war there was a polarized world - there was the soviet union, there was the united states and a lot of our interventions were used to block the advance of communism, and so very ideological basis for our, our inte
and girls, the rights and roles of women and girls a central focus of american foreign policy. and i didn't do it because it was a nice thing to do or it was some pet project of mine. i did it because the evidence is overwhelming. countries that deny political and social rights to women and girls are more unstable, more likely to breed extremism, more likely to threaten the united states. countries that deny economic opportunities to women and girls, rooted in education and business and investment are not going to be as prosperous as they might otherwise be. so it became clear that if i was going to be traveling around talking about diplomacy and development, urging changes in economic structures, introducing what we call economic statecraft to be a central pillar of our foreign policy you had to talk about women and girls and so i've tried to do that. >> restrictions on women's economic participation are costing us massive amounts of economic growth and income in every region of the world. >> this work, ensuring that women are equal partners, as they should be, and are free to realize th
adults. >> i would argue that a more restrained foreign policy is the true conservative foreign policy. >> the average american is not thinking about and trying to wonder about where the republican party is. they're thinking about how to make their life work. >> your leader in the house right there, eric cantor, where is this debate headed? >> i think it's a good debate for the republican party to have. when you lose an election, you ought to be a little bit reflective and ought to think back and ought to begin to say, what do we need to do differently? we didn't do badly in the election, but the president won with less than he was elected in '08, lower popular vote, lower electoral vote. we held the house, we have 30 governors. the idea this is some existential crisis is overdone, i think, but we didn't win so what do we need differently. i like what we're hearing and like the direct line that governor jindal took because i think we have -- >> we can't be too -- >> yeah, we nearly were in the fiscal cliff and could have triggered a big tax increase. i don't want to be stupid but you a
that is a loss in trying to create a bipartisan foreign policy in washington and the reduction was probably one of the most important congressional initiatives that we have ever seen. the idea that you could take that kind of money from the defense budget that didn't make the military very happy and apply it to demilitarizing the strategic arsenal of the former soviet union was extremely important. we go from bush to clinton, clinton didn't want to deal with foreign policy like so many presidents they felt they were elected to do domestic things. clinton had no background in foreign policy, no interest in the foreign policy. people say they went to georgetown, the school really wasn't good enough as i am concerned. i hope i am not offending anyone in georgetown she put together a security team all of them were gone within a year or two for the most part when you look at christopher and the cia was a very peculiar appointment. he did something that needs to be corrected. he was in the foreign policy bureaucracy as i am concerned he brought to the right wing and abolishing the arms control and di
him the most important person in the mix this week in the vice president spoke about foreign policy challenges at the munish security conference. >> we have made it clear at the outset that we would not-- we would be prepared to me bilaterally with the irani leadership. we would not make it a secret that we were doing that. we would let our partners know if that occasion presented itself. that offer stands. nearly all of our partners and allies are convinced that president assad is a tyrant, hell-bent on clinging to power, is no longer fit to lead the syrian people and he must go. >> as well as syria and iran the united states faces new challenges from islammix extremism in african, yet it is not clear they are ready to stand on their own by 2014 when u.s. troops are scheduled to withdraw. and great power politics are on the a lend-- agenda again. china is confident, insertive in the south china sea in relations about moskow have cooled. all of this with a troubled economy at home and calls for a lighter footprint abroad. i'm pleased to have tom donilon back at this table. welcome.
and its impact on neighboring countries. then, a look at foreign policy challenges facing the obama administration. after that, a discussion about the state of women's rights around the world. >> if you have some hotshot who just got his phd in computer science from stanford, she is getting offers from all over the world. to say you can stay in some limbo for six years, that is not really competitive. >> congress can do a lot. you do not have to be efficient on your iphone or blackberry to understand the application of policy and what makes it work and does not. >> it is very difficult to make investment decisions and expect any kind of return on investment when you have no way to predict the future. our difficulty right now is that there is no consistency or certainty in in our policy decisions. >> the government's role in technology and policy, from this years ces international consumer electronics show. monday night on the communicators on c-span2. >> at age 65, she was the oldest first lady when her husband became president. she never set foot in washington. her husband, benjami
. it has played a role in moving people to see some of the backroom dealings of u.s. foreign policy. it has exposed people to think harder. i do think it played a role in leading people in tunisia and egypt to look at some of the cables and see what people already knew in their gut the soccer field in wikileaks about the alliances between u.s. foreign policy with the most repressive elements in those countries. let's hope that changes as the uprisings continue. anytime you can learn more about what is being done in our name, it is critical. that is part of what transparency is about. the freedom of information act is still not working well under the obama administration. some of that is pos/t 9/11. in los war will lead to a decline in information transparency access. anytime you can have less sequence -- secrecy, that is good. less secrecy is needed. it was handled at the outset by partnering with newspapers like "the guardian," traditional newspapers of distinction. wikileaks released documents around the world to newspapers in india, haiti, the middle east, latin america. it has had an im
the fears of progressives as obama conducts a foreign policy that looks like bush's. i am not pro-drone. i am pro-destroying al qaeda. i am pro-protecting america. i am pro-a better drone program and i am pro ending this war as soon as we can but i fear that's a long way away. as douglas macarthur said, only the dead have seen the end of war, and we may now be in a permanent war. okay. that does it for "the cycle." martin, it's yours. >> passionate patriotism from toure. thank you. it's monday, february 11th, and a pope has abdicated, the president prepares to face the nation, but republicans are still stuck on benghazi. >> the president's state of the union address. could be the president's last best chance to address a captive audience. >> do republicans have the leverage now? >> none of the things i ran on as part of the tea party have been fixed. >> i don't want to live with this sequester. >> how do we get growth with jobs? >> no confirmation without information. >> are you going to support him for defense secretary? >> i will see the rest of the answers to his questions but certainly
office in 2009. for more now on this attack, the president's foreign policy, i'm joined by pulitzer prize-winning journalist of fox news contributor, judith miller, fox news middle eastern terrorism analyst. let me begin with you. this attack on -- this sneak attack during the secretary's tenure is kind of an art of vice, but the reality is that we still have enemies who are pursuingheir interests, even as we deny the force, the power, and the, if you will, the ubiquity of those forces. >> absolutely. i mean, the denial of the kind of need to continue the war and terror in this administration is really striking. hillary clinton wonders out, says farewell to her troops, takes a swipe at her critics and the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee has to point out, by the way, this calls for a sweeping review of the security of our diplomatic facilities, and she is never asked about it, does not have to respond to it. she is really amazingly adept at dodging hard questions. lou: adept, immune, inoculated, teflon, if you will. this secretary of state, despite the miles logged, almost
, immigration, the environment, everything basically, but his lead on foreign policy is a staggering 14 points. what makes republicans think this is a good thing to have a fight over? >> right. up until recently everybody said, look, politics stops at the water's edge, and that hasn't been the case for the last couple years with this republican party. but it turns out that it wasn't necessarily that both parties followed that axiom because they were being nice about it. it turns out that it's incredibly bad politics to challenge your sitting president overseas. and, you know, this benghazi thing has not worked out for the republican party at all. they tried effectively to make it the biggest issue of the presidential campaign in the last several weeks, and people just didn't buy into it. what they saw is a tragedy. something that was -- if it could have been prevented, it should have been prevented, but they weren't going to start pointing blame and ask for the resignations of hillary clinton and throw barack obama out of office. >> right. >> and the idea that you'd be able to stop future cia
and didn't because he was so, quote, strong on foreign policy. >> you say, quote. that's why i voted for him. i trusted george bush to make hard, tough decisions that i thought john kerry might waver on. >> thank you. which is why i don't think obama will have any problem with this. >> i think it helps him. >> he'll look like a strong, and just like he did a year ago, just like when he killed bin laden, he looks incredibly strong on foreign policy. and this will not provide a weak spot for him in the long run. >> mika, really quickly, i agree with you there. i don't think there's going to be a political fallout from it. >> yeah. >> i think one of the things that disturbs me so much is the fact that americans are not any more concerned about other americans being able to be targeted and killed without any due process. and i'll say it again because i can hear people saying, well, why didn't you say that about george w. bush? i did. i did on padilla. i did when there were americans whose constitutional rights were being eviscerated by what was going on during the bush era. i spoke out t
. >> on foreign policy, we have a new secretary of state taking over today just as veep biden in his meetings with french president hollande in paris talk about the possibility of one-on-one bilateral talks with iran. let's take a look at what joe biden had to say. >> when and if the supreme leader and the iranians are prepared to discuss the essence of what is at the core of these embargoes, we're prepared to discuss. we're prepared to meet with them individually. >> iran, of course, a big topic in the chuck hagel confirmation hearings. a big source of dispute and wig conversations and negotiation with israel. john kerry over the weekend talked to simon peres and talked to abbas and also met hue. where do we stand now, and what is the timeline aring the different red lines with israel and with the possibility of one-on-one talks with iran? >> well, aun drae, i thought that the most important statement that the vice president biden made was when and if. they haven't really had conversations even with the totally of the european powers, but -- and iran since june. many thought that there would
saying you know foreign policy, here is another bit of evidence that it is run from the white house. now the president has the perfect right to overrule. >> yes. >> he is is the can kmnd-- commander in chief and some of the best decisions a man named elliott cone write a book on this, some of the best presidential decisions have been overruled. so within that perfect right he is, nonetheless the concentration of power in the white house across a whole range of spheres is i think a little troubling. and seconds's very hard to believe that there wasn't any politics in this domestic politics, i mean. now it could be arming the rebels was ineffective but if you have this broad sweep of people saying we should arm the rebels and the white house says no, it's hard to believe since it was so politically convenient not-- that it wasn't a mistake. and now the wrong rebels are in -- >> politics does have a role sometimes. >> the president did, in fact, overrule his advisors, including the vice president, including the secretary of defense gates, on going after osama bin laden. and elise ened to jo
? >> ultimately the key decision makers in american foreign policy are the same people. which is the president and its key advisors on the national security council. and the issue is not whether or not the advocates in the state department or the pentagon are there. i think at some point the united states government and the white house have to make a decision that syria is an actual danger to america's national security interests. it is not something we can wash our hands from. and there are serious dangers and implications to the united states and the president actually to ask its national security team for realistic options that then he request gather his team and debate and decide about. there hasn't, i think, been a serious debate even with thunited stasgovernment as to what might be our three top options what are the costs and benefits of each. and if we were to pursue one of them, how would we do it. >> is there a legitimate argument that this destabilizes turkey to some degree, an important country to the united states, and a nato ally, andrew. >> absolutely. thousands of syrians go ove
peace and transformation in the region. we have made an important foreign policy shift, both in terms of process and engagement in the region. it is grounded for the first time in our history in the bedrock of consent and legitimacy and many stakeholders in the making of foreign policy. this is a first for pakistan including our relationship with the united states, which is pretty much run by parliamentary guidelines. it does empower us to make decisions that are sustainable, we hope. and we look for a relationship that as long lasting and not just a function of our relationship with the united states on afghanistan as the transition out of the region. >> thank you for that. did they offer you breakfast? >> yes, they did. >> oh, ok. i was so busy taking notes. a couple of questions and i will turn it over to my colleagues. i want to ask about the impact, if any, that having john kerry as secretary of state is going to have. what is your sense of the importance, if any, of his appointment? >> i think that pakistan-u.s. relations are vital to both countries and we appreciate very much t
.c., foreign policy, the sad truth about benghazi. the cia director john brennan and his support for drone bombings to kill american traitors and we might get into waterboarding as well. first up the automatic sequester spending cuts set to kick in in three weeks. outgoing secretary of defense leon pan et offered these dire warning today before congress. take a listen. >> frankly one of the greatest security risks we are now facing as a nation that, this budget uncertainty could prompt the most significant readiness -- military readiness crisis in more than a decade. >> all right. but there are ways to responsibly trim the pentagon's budget and still protect national security. former defense undersecretary michelle flournoy, if identify got that right -- michelle flournoy, i beg your pardon, she penned an op-ed in the wall street journal this week. joining us is aforementioned michele flournoy. michelle, or undersecretary, which ever you prefer -- >> michelle, please. >> i thought your piece was terrific. sequester or not, defense department is going to lose 10% of its budget and you think
foreign policy and military policy on the basis of drones. lou: let's take a look at the drawn strikes that accelerated markedly, dramatically under president obama from the bush years. freaky put that up to show how it is grown. 352 drone strikes in pakistan and yemen under president obama. 352, and in 63 in given since 2009. one strike under president bush. 289 strikes in pakistan verses 45 and the bush. last week, we only take such actions as a last resort to save lives. any actions will be legally grounded, the early anchored in intelligence. what does that sound like a rehearsed line? what the implications if he is confirmed? and i want to add one thing to this issue. a new website. a new website to me. coming out with this report that part of the problems that we are creating, the cia under david patraeus moving toward special operations instead of carrying out what has been traditionally its responsibility, intelligence gathering. where does all of this ploy? >> they always had two sides of the house. operations and intelligence analysis side. the strikes, the drone strikes at t
in terms of foreign policy from the bush doctrine, from the bush era policies, but in many ways has followed them and has been handed this entire security apparatus, this particular program began in 2004, about 400 strikes have happened so far. about 3,000 people have been killed, mostly pakistan, somali, yemen. but you have had this sort of deafening silence for the most part from progressives and liberals around this. you have had a few voices certainly on the hill and even on your network to raise questions about it, but by and large, the president has been given something of a pass. i think also the public has moved beyond this in some ways. there's a post-9/11 new normal in terms of how the public looks at the prosecution of this war on terror. they see it, it seems to me, as a vast war, an endless war in some ways that might be best prosecuted in this way rather than those large land wars we saw in afghanistan and iraq of this sort of pinpointed targeting of folks seem so far to have found some positive backing from americans. >> the cover of "time" magazine is rise of the dro
box right? >> such a key component of obama's foreign policy has been we're going to slip in across borders, we're going to do covert actions kill who we need to kill as we view that. it is extremely -- you know, these kind of things, the way these things operate the machinery behind it when you read this memo, i mean this is what you would call, you know, a barnburner scoop. this is actually amazing stuff to see this written down in black and white the way the government does this. >> bill: again i think liberals progressives, would be raising holy hell if george bush and dick cheney -- if this were their policy demanding at least to know what the guidelines are. i think we should be equally strong, i believe in making that demand. even if it's president obama and joe biden. their policy. because this is a big deal. and you know -- >> if you think guys likewide-do that? -- wyden will do that? >> bill: he wrote letters saying we want to see all of the memos on drone policy and we want to see what the guidelines are. what rules you are following. and i think the american people deser
in collaboration with foreign policy and lot of other conferences and public cay i guesses around south ashane affairs. so anyway, we are pleased to have out indication to bring us together and the purpose to have a serious discussion about the idea and subjects that are in the book than are obviously still alive. as d.a. lem ma for american foreign policy. let me introduce peter and welcome him to the podium. thank you. [applause] thank you steven. thank you for all of you coming today and for c-span for covering this. steve was instrumental in making this project happen. i'm grateful to him. thank you to oxford university press which published the book and did a fine job in terms of presenting the material. thank you also to my coed or it katherine and thanks to people here at the foundation brian fishman, patrick doughty, jennifer i believe you were involved in making the book possible. steve indicated the reason we thought the project was necessary a series of papers not as the command stormed on the stage out of the woods of cambodia in the 1970s had a movement become so important yet at
season for arming the rebels in syria. more than 60,000 people have died, but that others on the foreign policy team pushed back, and the president made a decision not to. >> yeah. let me just say on this one i may be inclined toward the president. i'm not certain who those -- who would get those weapons. i don't want to fwet into too much detail. i'm also on the intelligence committee, but i'm -- i am not certain that those weapons wouldn't fall into the wrong hands, and that's a real problem we've had in syria. maybe more should be done earlier on to get better control of the rebels, but now to me there's too many unsavory pro-islamist elements among those rebels, so i am not certain that they should be given weapons. that's a tough call, and i'm not close enough to it on the ground, but from what i do know, i'm very leary about giving any weapons because they could end up in the hands of islamists. >> congressman peter king, it's great to have your perspective, and thank you and good luck in the storm for you and your constitch wednesday. thank you for being with us today. >> thank yo
or seen as instruments of foreign policy. to undercover operations they don't want a military operation. but in with these meetings talking about afghanistan with the departure of agriculture after afghanistan and robert gates grew up in kansas have been no they know how to grow anything? it has been a problem. betray a says come i'm. they're not trained to do that with a they should or not the they have never been trained civic i appreciate you coming. i am a retired artillery officer hinder than betray us with that kind of gap it was a culture shock but with special forces and insurgency and if it meshes with the drones reusing that seems to be proliferating and your take on the ethical concerns a said capturing people we blow them away. >> one thing crystal did did create so he reached out to resolve the different intelligence agencies and conventional forces. when he went out he had access to every kind of intelligence there was handed revolutionized, a very integrated. that could be the subject of another talk. one, in terms of casualties is somebody fired a drone and was on me not
the weapons. >> you delivered a major foreign policy today at the heritage foundation. well thought out speech on national security issues. why now? why did you decide to do it? because you knew that it was going to jump-start the speculation you want to establish foreign policy credentials for a possible run in 2016. >> you know, i just joined the foreign relations committee. i wanted to spell out what my mission is for the foreign policy. it's a unique position and one that needs to be expressed. we often have two polar extremes and really just one, for the most part, that we're everywhere you will a of the time. the other extreme is that it would be nowhere any of the time and that would be isolationism. there's a realistic approach somewhere in the middle and it would involve containment. i talked a lot about george kennan who may be the most famous diplomats, thought to be one of the chief architects of containment and i think there's some of ththat may apply to rad islam. it's an thet cal to freedom and has to be opposed at various parts around the world but i don't think the standard ap
on foreign policy. when his father ron paul ran for president he got in trouble with a lot of republicans because his foreign policy was anti-war and isolationist which a lot of republicans didn't like. rand paul is departing from that, trying to make himself more acceptable, i think, to mainstream republicans. >> so you think we'll have another paul on the ballot in 2016. is rand paul remotely electable, nia-malika henderson? >> i'm not really sure. >> nationally. >> if you look at what happens, the republicans as much as we can talk about how they have moved to the right, the last candidates that have come out of these primaries have been moderates. you think about mitt romney, john mccain. is there going to be a third party, the tea party that breaks away from the gop. we'll have to wait and see. >> thanks to both of you. good to see you on this sunday. >> thank you. >> just ahead, top of the hour. the big dig has a new meaning in boston. digging out from more than three feet of snow, but it won't be in time for school tomorrow. good news force kids. bad news for parent. plus, californ
get away. went into iraq. when you look at how he conducted foreign policy between iraq and afghanistan and how this president has gotten us out of iraq and afghanistan, gotten bin laden and is certainly a lot less casualties than we've been having but that being said, you know chris, we should have a legal expert out on what makes you an american citizen or not or whether that makes you an enemy combatant, i don't know. >> well, you know, also we created al-qaeda since osama bin laden and ha deem to go after the soviets in afghanistan. we really have nothing to complain about. we put that all in motion. >> stephanie: richard in chicago. >> caller: good morning. i think -- i'm a big obama supporter but this is just wrong. i do feel like -- and i'm not going to blame this -- this policy is an obama policy. the escalation of drones. it has been happening. you know i just think it is a slippery slope where it turns into a convenient way to intervene, you know. you can withdraw from afghanistan and iraq without using drones. this is just an escalation of his policy and you k
against foreign persons, i think, is troubling from a moral, ethical, and policy point of view. but i don't subscribe to the fact that it's illegal under u.s. law. and that's the law that the president is bound by the constitution to follow. my focus has been primarily, and i'm not saying it's a good program. i'm just saying that i think it's a moral policy question rather than a legal one primarily for the president. i focus primarily on the targeted killing of american citizens, which does bring into play the united states constitution and the rule of law in the united states. and i'm very troubled about that aspect of it. >> can you help us understand how this official program of targeted killing works? >> apparently, the agencies, primarily the pentagon and the c.i.a. nominate people to be on the list. and it goes through what the white house promises is a very rigorous process of review to determine if those people should or should not be on the list. we don't know exactly what the standard is. but it involves a number of criteria, including whether the host country, the country in w
dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? yes or no. >> my reference to the -- >> are you going to answer the question, senator hagel? the question is, were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> well -- >> i would like the answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot of things today. >> well, let the record show you refuse to answer that question. >> ana, the viewers may not know the history between hagel and mccain. they were close friends in 2000. not so in 2008 when it was clear that hagel's wife was supporting obama and not mccain. was that personal? >> i don't think so at all. anybody who ever saw mccain grill donald rumsfield knows that this is john mccain. this is his job. they are there to advise and consent, not to rubber stamp. if they are not going to get the scrutiny and tough questions now, then when? >> why was he so much tougher on chuck hagel than john kerry? >> because there are so many inconsistenci
to president obama's foreign policy in as far as being able to take out terrorist where is he doesn't have to send u.s. troops and john brennan was an architect of that strategy. of course, controversial because there are innocent civilians who can get caught up in that as "the new york times" written about earlier this week, as well. that's obviously where some of this is coming from but the question americans face is would you rather have american troops and boots on the ground in yemen and pakistan or the unmanned drones taking on this responsibility? >> thank you very much. i appreciate you changing conversations in the middle of everything. we'll have plenty of time i'm sure to talk about chuck hagel. meantime, let's take the audience to the senate hearing and senator dianne feinstein. >> because of the added importance of having steady leadership at an organization that conducts most of its business outside of the public arena. intelligence is critical to the successful draw down in afghanistan, to the brutal war going on within's syria's borders, across north africa where the attack
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 104 (some duplicates have been removed)